Tag Archives: Chris Edwards

A change in election law in the 2015 Legislature has some claiming they are being disenfranchised.

Previously, when the state-run Democratic and Republican primaries resulted in only one of the two major parties having contested primaries, the top two vote earners in the contested primary would advance to the November General Election or, if only two candidates sought a seat, there would be no primary and both would be on the November ballot.

But Senate Bill 499 changed the law to now read: “If a major political party has two or more candidates for a particular office, the person who receives the highest number of votes at the primary election must be declared the nominee of that major political party for the office.”

Thus, for example, if there are only Republicans seeking an office, one of them is the party nominee and appears on the ballot in November, leaving Democrats and independents and those of the minor parties in the district little choice save the one Republican Party members handed them.

The bill also moved back the deadline for independent and minor party candidates to qualify for the General Election from June to July, so a Democrat could still file as an independent but not as a nominee of the party.

In one state Senate race and three Assembly races there are candidates on the June 14 primary for only one of the two major political parties, according to press accounts.

The change in law creates some different dynamics.

Take for example Assembly District 19, which includes Mesquite. Incumbent Republican Assemblyman Chris Edwards is being challenged in the primary by Republican Connie Foust. Only 39 percent of the district is Republican.

Edwards has the distinction of voting for most of the $1.4 billion in tax hikes in 2015 before voting against them.

Conceivably Edwards would have a better chance of re-election if he faced Foust in a General Election with Democrats and others also voting rather than in a GOP-only primary.

Foust is thumping on the tax issue in her campaign against Edwards. “The current incumbent broke his promise when he said, ‘Now is not the time to raise taxes’, and then proceeded to vote for tax increases in 26 out of 32 tax bills!” Foust’s campaign website declares.

Similar dynamics could be a factor in other races and alter the outcome of the election.

As originally introduced SB499 was a weird form of open primary. All candidates of all parties would have appeared on a single primary ballot and the top two vote recipients would advance to the general, unless they both were of the same party.

As signed into law by Gov. Brian Sandoval the gutted bill now just changes minor party and independent candidate filing deadlines and allows only one Democrat or one Republican to advance to November.

This is why some are saying they are being disenfranchised by having limited choices.

Frankly, lawmakers are the last people who should be telling the parties how to choose their candidates. The parties are private entities that should choose their candidates in any way they see fit — privately funded caucuses, primaries, smoke-filled backrooms or “American Idol”-style voting via text message or arm-wrestling competition.

The state doesn’t conduct primaries for the Libertarian, American Independent, Green or Communist parties, why do it for just two?

Not only is the U.S. Constitution silent on political parties, our Founders were actually disdainful of political parties.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789, “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other,” John Adams wrote in 1780. “This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

Let the parties choose their candidates without lawmakers dabbling in the process.

The morning newspaper reports today that a change in the law in 2015 might effectively disenfranchise a number of voters in four Nevada legislative districts.

In one state Senate race and three Assembly races there are candidates on the June 14 primary for only one of the two major political parties. Previously, if there were only two candidates of a major party there would be no primary and both would advance to the General Election in November. If there were three or more candidates, the top two would advance.

But Senate Bill 499 changed the law and says: “If a major political party has two or more candidates for a particular office, the person who receives the highest number of votes at the primary election must be declared the nominee of that major political party for the office.”

Thus, for example, if there are only two Republicans seeking an office, one of them is the party nominee and appears on the ballot in November, leaving Democrats and independents in the district little choice save the one Republicans handed them.

The bill also moved back the deadline for independent and minor party candidates to qualify for the General Election from June to July, so a Democrat could still file as an independent but not as a nominee of the party. Minor parties may also nominate candidates.

Assemblyman Chris Edwards

According to the newspaper account, one Senate District in Clark County has two Democrats in the primary and no Republican. One Assembly District in Clark has three Republicans running and another only two Republicans. There are two Republicans seeking a Washoe Assembly seat.

The change in law creates some different dynamics in some races.

Take for example Assembly District 19, which includes Mesquite. Incumbent Republican Assemblyman Chris Edwards is being challenged by conservative Republican Connie Foust. As the newspaper reports, only 39 percent of the district is Republican.

Conceivably Edwards would have a better chance of re-election if he faced Foust in a General Election with Democrats also voting rather than in a GOP-only primary.

Foust is thumping on the tax issue in her campaign against Edwards. “The current incumbent broke his promise when he said, ‘Now is not the time to raise taxes’, and then proceeded to vote for tax increases in 26 out of 32 tax bills!” Foust’s campaign website declares.

AN ACT relating to elections; creating a modified blanket primary election system for partisan offices; authorizing any person who files a declaration or acceptance of candidacy and pays a filing fee to be a candidate for a partisan office at a primary election; providing, with limited exceptions, that the two candidates at a primary election for a partisan office who receive the highest number of votes must be declared nominees and have their names placed on the ballot for the general election; providing, with limited exceptions, that the two nominees on the ballot for the general election must not be affiliated with the same political party unless all of the candidates at the primary election are affiliated with the same political party; providing that the two nominees on the ballot for the general election may not be independent candidates unless all of the candidates at the primary election are independent candidates; eliminating provisions that prohibit a voter from casting a ballot in a primary election for partisan office for a candidate with a political affiliation different than that of the voter; making various conforming changes; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

As signed into law the bill just changes minor party and independent candidate filing deadlines and allows only one major party candidate to advance from the primary to November.

Archives

Archives

Battle Born

4TH ST8

"Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact ... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures. the requisite thing is, that he have a tongue which others will listen to ... Democracy virtually extant will insist on becoming palpably extant."